Thread by @GileadIni

1/ Here's @nytimes using "raises the question" as advocacy journalism.

Among whom, exactly, does it "raise the question"? Among those obsessed with Israel, who can't tell the difference between it and Iran. Those who equate CIA strikes on al Qaida w/ Russia poisoning Yushchenko

2/ Among the nuance-challenged who think all "government intelligence services" are equal and all "violence" the same. People who think the US can't use its tools of power to single out a country responsible for killing 600 American servicemen in Iraq and bombing a Jewish center.

3/ (Also, how did the Revolutionary Guards suddenly, at this point in the article, turn into a mere "intelligence service"?)

4/ Does the designation of IRGC "raise questions" about whether the US should deny visas to those who work with French intelligence? telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/0…

Sure. Among someone somewhere. But *of course not* among serious analysts worthy of mentioning in the New York Times.

5/ For reference, here's @StateDept fact sheet on the terror designation. Note that it doesn't say we're designating because IRGC is a "government intelligence service that uses violence." Contra @nytimes, that's not the "standard" here.

Obviously. state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/20…

cc @herbertnyt @slackman

Just to draw attention to the context of the screenshot above: The "standard" that the @nytimes author "raises questions" about—or has other invisible parties raise questions about—seems to be whether Israeli intelligence is a "terrorist" organization. The paper is off the rails.

Here's a zoomed out screenshot including prior paragraph. Again, the @nytimes shoehorns Israel into the story not only to compare it to Iran, Russia, and Pakistan, but to "raise the question" of whether the IRGC designation somehow means Israeli intelligence is a terror org. (!!)